Module Detail
Subject Name Political Science
Paper Name International Relations Theory and Politics
Module
Name/Title Global Governance
Pre-requisites
Objectives To understand the concept, theory and implication of ‘Global Governance’ in the present time.
To trace the origin of ‘governance’ as a concept in political science and further its use in international arena.
To know about the theories of global governance such as; realist theory, liberal .theory, constructivist theory, liberal institutionalism theory, critical theory and regime theory.
To explain the concept of ‘Global Governance’ as a ‘Global Public-Good’.
To discuss several actors role with ‘Global Governance’.
Keywords Global Governance, NGO’s, Realist, Liberal, International Relations, Global Public-Good, Social Movements and Public-Private Partnerships
Role Name Affiliation
Principal Investigator Prof. Ashutosh Kumar Department of Political
Science, Panjab University CHD.
Paper Coordinator Dr. Jayati Srivastava
Shibashis Chatterjee
Associate Professor, School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi.
Professor, Department of International Relations, Jadavpur University, Kolkata
Content Writer/Author (CW) Pallavi Mishra
School of International Studies, JNU.
Content Reviewer (CR) Dr. Jayati Srivastava School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi.
Language Editor (LE) Dr. Jayati Srivastava School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University,
New Delhi.
Module-18 Global Governance
Objectives of the Module
The current module has been written keeping in focus the level of understanding of undergraduate and master students of political science and international relations. The deliberate use of lucid language to write this article will help students irrespective of their academic background to understand the concept, theory and implication of ‘Global Governance’ in the present time. In this article attempt has been made to trace the origin of ‘governance’ as a concept in political science and further its use in international arena. Departure from international to global governance has marked the emergence of different actors, such as: civil society organizations, epistemic communities, Non-governmental Organizations (NGOs), International Non-governmental Organizations (INGOs), social movement and many other non- state actors. These actors were earlier confined to national boundaries but in the globalized world their sphere of activity has increased immensely and now they are able to influence decision making at global level. Now the nation states are not the only unit of international relations but there is a plethora of actors whose role and contribution cannot be ignored. One remarkable example of that is Amnesty International, which works for the protection of human rights across the world.
In this article the concept of ‘Global Governance’ has been discussed extensively. To make the article comprehensive all the theories of global governance such as; realist theory, liberal theory, constructivist theory, liberal institutionalism theory, critical theory and regime theory etc. have been discussed. The attempt has been made to explain the concept of ‘Global Governance’ as a
‘Global Public-Good’. In the other section several actors of ‘Global Governance’ and their role has been discussed. The students are required to have a little understanding of international relation (IR) theories, which will help them in understanding the explanation of ‘Global
Governance’ as a concept of IR. The article will help students in understanding the role of international, intra-national and regional organizations in shaping global governance. The article aims to make students aware about the role of global governing agencies in determine the relations and interactions among states as one of the units of IR and critically assess their functions in the present time.
1. Introduction
Globalization of world politics has led to the emergence of many new issues in the discipline of International Relations (IR) and one of those issues is Global Governance. Till the end of 1970s the discipline of IR focused only on the relations between sovereign states, wars and treaties at international level. The transition from 1970s to post cold-war period was not smooth, though global governing authorities were working for the betterment of mankind across the globe during the cold war period their existence was either marred by the quandaries in post Second World War era or their role was ignored due to the state centrist approach of the study of international relations. Global governance is an important feature of post cold war international affairs. The cold war period politics which is also known as bi-polar world politics, as the international politics of that time revolved around only two powers: United States and Soviet Russia. These two major powers had influence on all the institutions and organizations working at international level, and they forced these organizations to work in exclusively for the fulfilment of their interests. However, this scenario changed with the commencement of globalization and increased economic integration.
Globalization has led to the increased interaction among people, governments and non-state actors at international level. This increased interaction resulted in the emergence of new problems which are beyond the control of states alone. In the last few decades after the end of cold war world, society has witnessed many changes in international politics. Rapid development in the sphere of technology has made a noticeable impact on international politics, as debates on nuclear issues, environmental issues and public health issues at international level are some of the outcomes of technological development. New issues has given birth to new actors such as non-governmental organizations (NGOs), civil society groups, epistemic communities and issue
based regional and international organization which has made the structure of international politics more intricate. These actors are playing influential role in determining the course of action of states.
In the last few years any structure or process of politics regardless of scope, context and content, whether it is non-governmental organization’s campaign against corruption, civil society’s movement against environmental deterioration or movements for total disarmament, which are beyond the control of state has been declared as a part of general idea of global governance (Wang and Rosenau 2001). National governments are not capable enough to control and regulate the activities at global level alone and thus we need a global governing mechanism to oversee these activities. This reader is going to deal with: what is global governing mechanism? How does it work? What is the status of global governing mechanism in present time? And, what are the debates revolving around the issue of global governance? The reader will begin with the definition of the concept of global governance.
2. Defining Global Governance
The concept of global governance is very wide in terms of activities, actors involved in this mechanism and the issues which it addresses. Many scholars have tried to define global governance, yet there does not exist any one widely accepted definition of global governance. In this reader we would try to have a look at some scholars and their definitions and try to find out some common characteristic features of global governance. The term governance has emerged from latin word ‘gubernator’ which literally means a person who is the source of authority and also ‘self acting contrivance for regulating’ to ensure regulation and control.1 The original meaning of the word governance manifests that governance is a regulatory mechanism which gives a pattern to the behaviour of actors involved at global level. Rosenau (1992) has defined global governance as ‘a system without any centralized authority but able to enforce decision at global level’. According to his definition, though the structure of this global mechanism is very
1 Oxford English Dictionary 1971: 1182.
loose and vague, it manages to control the activities of states. According to Rosenau (1995), governance does not include only international organizations and sovereign states but also provincial and local actors and family as a governing mechanism. There is ample ambiguity in his definition as it fails to determine the source and centre of authority which regulates and implements decisions. He defines governance as an authoritative tool in the sense that there exists a social relationship between governed and governing authority, thus the existence of governance depends upon its acceptance by a significant proportion of population (which accepts authority) as well as an institutional setup. Bull (1977) writes that global governance has much to do with the achievement of goal in an orderly way, thus global governance is purposive.
Basically global governance is a set of rule wrote Biersteker (2009). These rules can be formal in nature and can be present in a form of institution or they can also be informal and resides in inter-subjectively among a population. Global governance can be defined as a set of practice and set of norms regarding correct behaviour at global level (Barnett and Duvall 2006).
Governance and government are two different concepts. Government is a structure while governance is a process or function and process needs to be sanctioned by the masses. Earlier the term governance was having domestic political connotation but now it is used beyond the politics of state as well (Dingwerth and Pattberg 2006). When we study the concept of global governance we find that there is disagreement regarding both the concepts global as well as governance. The term global itself is widely defined and used as a system which not only includes states as a component but also gives space to other actors such as multinational corporations, NGOs, INGOs, social movements and Public-Private Partnerships. Hirst (2000) writes that term global has two connotations: first is the “top level scale of human activities” and second is the “sum total of human activities”. It means the human activities which have impact across the globe is called global, for instance excess emission of carbon dioxide by human beings in one part of the world will have its impact on the environment of other side of the world, whereas, governance is a steering process. Stoker (1998), writes that governance is a process of creating condition for ordered rule and collective action and thus there is no difference of outcome of government and governance and it is nothing but difference in process.
Global governance is also closely associated with the emergence of new public management strategies of 1980s which emphasizes on cost and efficiency (Osborne and Gaebler 1992). It is
closer to corporate governance which stresses upon managerial skills of private sector to be adopted by public sector to achieve goals efficiently. With regard to the emergence of global governance one popular opinion is that its emergence has to do with real or perceived decline in the institutional strength of modern states and increasing social interdependence (Kooiman 2002 and Pierre 2000). Therefore it is defined as a supporting structure of transforming liberal states, as it helps in filling up the gap of governance process which was earlier restricted to states as a political actor.
However, by the analysis of these definitions we have developed a fair understanding of what exactly global governance is and we can sum up these definitions in few characteristic features of global governance. One of the unanimously accepted features of global governance is that it is a set of rules for organized and patterned of different actors at international level. It provides an innovative way for solving newly emerged problems due to the increased activity of different actors which do not fall under the authority area of individual states. Global governance gives space to many actors to interact and provide solution to common problem of human kind across the globe. Therefore global governance can be understood as a new regulating mechanism which authoritatively regulates the behaviour of different actors in order to establish a politically secured and socially healthy atmosphere for human kind to grow. Above all these an authority must be accepted by people without any apprehension and suspension. Thus global governance needs popular support. The very effort of defining global governance makes it clear that there exists a wide array of debate on emergence and practicability of global governance and it has been contextualized differently in different IR theories. In the next section of the reader we would try to historically contextualize global governance in IR.
3. Contextualizing Global Governance in IR
This section would deal with the different discourses on global governance and will through some light on the connection between polity, society economy and governance. The main focus of this section would be on the ideational development of the concept of global governance. The study of different actors, other than states at international would help in understanding the concept partially. To have a holistic understanding of global governance we need to contextualize the concept in different debates in IR. The emerging debate on global governance in IR revolves around state cantered and non-state account of political order (Nolke 2003).
Globalization has brought changes not only in economic sphere and increased economic interdependence but it has also led to massive change in society, polity and even in the environment which we live in. The study of IR in 21st century has taken account of these changes and their impact on discipline in an extensive manner, and the study of global governance in IR is an instance of acknowledgement of the transforming scenario. To understand the emergence of global governance we need to delineate its connection with globalization. Held et al. (1999) is of the view that globalization is actually “widening, deepening and speeding up of worldwide inter connectedness” in all the sphere of human life from “cultural to criminal and financial to spiritual”. This interconnectedness has led to the blurring of national and transnational borders (Rosnaue 1997). Free movement of goods, knowledge and people and blurring of boundaries has acerbated problems which states are not capable to solve. Though globalization is one of the forces behind the emergence of global governing mechanism, it is not the only reason as globalization is leading to new problems everyday and demands for more innovative socio- political and economic responses, thus in that condition one form of global governance cannot be considered as an ultimate alternative to cope up with these problems. The other reason behind questioning globalization as the only factor for the emergence of global governance is that global governance itself determines to a great extent the course of the progress of globalization (Pattberg 2006). During 1990s and also in 21st century the debate in IR has shifted from ‘inter- national’ to ‘global’ and the study of the role of NGOs, civil society organizations, end of state and transformation of society, in 1980s the IR debate was dominated by Waltzian neo-realist state centralism and in 1970s the IR debate was dominated by transnationalism (Pattberg 2006).
Initially the discourse on global governance followed a trajectory from international governance regime and norm setting to the growth in the number of regimes for different issues and the regimes which had an impact on national and international policy making (Biermann et al. 2002).
However, in the present time the discussion on global governance in IR has moved much ahead of national and trans-national debate and focusing on the social construction of identities and interests and changing socio-political relations among different actors.
Current debates on global governance are concentrated on assessing the role of plethora of actors in international relations which have gained prominence in present time. Global governance has been used as a reference point by the scholars who do not believe in the anarchical international system where the sovereign states are embedded. The system of global governance is basically a
set of social organization and political decision making which has not emerged from state and even not directed towards it (Dingwerth and Pattberg 2006). The discourses on global governance have brought to the light the paradigmatic shift from state centric approach to non- state actor centric approach in IR, which further help in comprehending the pattern of behaviour at international level. The study of international relations deals with political interaction of states, however, global governance is known for focusing on multilevel interaction at international, national and regional and local level. In the next section of the reader we would discuss about the theories of IR and try to understand different theoretical interpretations of global governance.
4. Theoretical Analysis of Global Governance in IR
Theoretical analysis of global governance will help in answering certain questions which have emerged with the emergence of global governance as an institution in international politics. The first question which theoretical debate dwells upon is the world order or the structure of world politics in present time and the position of state in the current world order. The study of the position of state is relative in the sense that the role of other actors should also be taken into consideration while discussing the role of state and also the distribution of power among actors.
The study of global governance minutely observes the activities and role of non-stare actors, transnational actors and their influence on global policy making, thus the role of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Control (IPCC), Codex Alimentarius of United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), Amnesty International and International Atomic Energy Agency, becomes an important issue for analysis. The most important issues while studying about global governance are the accountability and legitimacy of these institution, that where do they get authority from, and whom they are accountable to.
Global governance is an integral part of the study of international relations and thus it is pertinent to first understand global governance in the light of different theories of IR so that conceptualization of global governance would become easy in fast changing international scenario. In this section we would discuss about realist, liberal and institutionalist, pluralist, critical, and constructivist theories of IR and how they interpret global governance.
4.1 Realist Interpretation of Global Governance
Political realism begins with Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527) and Thomas Hobbes (1588- 1679). Machiavelli in his famous book The Prince writes that a king should do everything and anything to retain power and secure state form any internal turmoil and external invasions. He has liberated his prince form all kind of ethical and theological morality. His prince is not bound by any personal or private moral obligation.2 Hobbes in his book Leviathan writes that human beings by their very nature are selfish, nasty and brutish. In the state of nature, which is an assumed condition before the emergence of state, human beings in the absence of any overarching authority strive for their selfish goals and thus they are in constant struggle with each other. These classical realists though concentrated more on domestic politics nevertheless their interpretations have been used to interpret the behaviour of states in the realm of international politics. In international relations sovereign states are considered as the primary actors.3 These states compete with each other for their own interests and struggle for power.
Reinhold Niebhur and Hans J. Morgenthau are exponents of classical realists of IR. Though the classical IR realists are different from Machiavelli on the issue of morality as he does not believes in compliance of morality by the prince, whereas the scholars of IR questions the moral obligation and ignorance of political realities. They interpret IR on conflict based paradigm and also opine that there is no international government which can control the activity of states.
Classical realists have interpreted international politics as a self help system, where power plays and overriding force and determine the relationships. These scholars have less to say about common international rule making and enforcing authority as according to them it is a myth.
States collaborates with powerful states to maintain the balance of power and to threaten their rivals. Rights are defined in terms of might. After the World War I, liberal thinkers like Norman Angell, Alfred Zimmern, Reymond D. Fosdick and U.S. President Woodrow Wilson propagated the idea of the establishment of an institution which could prevent war and bring states to the table for negotiation and establish peace. Thus emerged the League of Nations in 1920s but soon after when the World War II broke out its futility was realized.4E.H. Carr in his book Twenty Years’ Crisis1919-1939 disagrees with the liberal conception of reason, morality and underlying harmony in interests of sovereign states. According to him morality is a sham in international
2Mindle, Grant B (1985), “Machivelli’s Realism”, The Review of Politics, 47 (2): 212-230.
3Korba, Karpowicz and Julian W (2011), “Political Realism in International Relations”, [Online: web] Accessed 27th Feb 2013 URL: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/realism-intl-relations/.
4 Ibid.
politics and it is constructed. He writes that morality and justice are constructed and enforced and coerced by a powerful legal regime on the weaker states. He further opines that any king of international society of states is impossible.5 Similarly Hans J. Morganthau in his book Politics among Nation writes that international politics is nothing but the struggle for power. During the cold war period a new strand of realism came into existence which is known as neo-realism and one of the most important proponents of this new ideological debate was Kenneth Waltz who wrote Theories of International Politics. He basically denied the explanation of international politics on the basis of human nature. He also said that power is not an end for state rather security is the end which they strive for and try to enhance power to ensure national security. He believes in an anarchical international system were relations among states are determined by the relative capabilities they possess. Though he recognized the existence of non-state actors, they are relatively less important than state. His views became obsolete after the disintegration of USSR as he predicted that bipolar system is stable and going to persist and then came into existence the pluralist notion of IR which believes in complex interdependence. In the next section of this reader we would discuss about pluralism in detail.
A closer analysis of the debate on realism in IR makes it clear that there prevails anarchy in international politics and sovereign states are the most important actors and their capabilities are determined by the power they posses. Though scholars like Carr have accepted the existence of some non-state actors, he hasn’t given much importance to them. In that case global governance or any global regime is considered as a means of legal coercion on weaker states. Realist scholars are of the view that states are rational and autonomous actors and they form an association or become a part of an international organization only to increase their power against their enemies. Basically these organizations do not govern states but the states decide their course of action.6 Though the other theories talk about increasing interdependence in globalized world, realists like Waltz (1998) writes that instead of increasing interdependence modern time is witnessing increasing inequality among states. Grieco (1988) writes that international institutions are not capable of mitigating the lack of cooperation cause by anarchy at international level.
5 Carr, E.H. (1939), The Twenty Years’ Crisis 1919-1939: An Introduction to The Study of International Relations, New York: Palgrave.
6Victora, Lennox (2008), “Conceptualizing Global Governance in International Relation”, [Online: web] Accessed 22nd Feb 2013 URL: http://www.e-ir.info/2008/10/03/conceptualising-global-governance-in-
international-relations/.
Liberal theory which will be dealt in next section accepts the facts that though states, which are atomistic, seek their gain, cooperate with each-other to maximize their gain. The only problem is that they are afraid of getting cheated by the other member. Realist in answer to that opine that states are not atomistic but they are positional and they are not only concerned about their absolute gains but also about relative gains and they are also worried that their partner may gain more by forming cooperation. International organizations can never prevent war as happened after First World War Second World War took place and also in the military interventions of western power in African AND Asian countries like Yom-Kippur and Iraq Iran wars 7 are some of the examples which are cited by realists during the latter half of 1980s. Ramond Aron (1996) writes that the ultimate goal of states is not human security but the security of state itself. 8
The criticism of global governance and international institutions proved to be outdated after the disintegration of Soviet Russia. Realist theory was criticized mainly for ignoring the role of other non-state actors like civil society organizations, non-governmental organizations, international organization and regional organizations which are playing substantial role in policy making at international level and they are also capable to scrutinize the activities of states at global level.
Realists have limited the role of these institutions to an agent which can enhance the power of states and which is used by states to threaten the weaker states, which is not true as in the present time we cannot ignore the role of Intergovernmental panel on Climate Control (IPCC) in determining the environmental policies at global and local levels. Similarly the role of United Nations (UN) cannot be ignored in bringing conflicting parties to the table of negotiation.
Though UN is a highly criticized body it still has not lost its relevance.
4.2 Liberal and Institutionalist Interpretation of Global Governance
Liberal theory provides a very optimistic view of international relations. John Locke, (1632- 1704) considered as the father of classical liberalism9, opines that the state of nature was the condition in which people used to cooperate with each-other and live with harmony. According to him human beings possess reason and tolerance. Liberalism believes in individualism,
7 George, Alexander L. and Smoke Richard (1974), Deterrence in American Foreign Policy: Theory and Practice, New York: Columbia University Press.
8Frsot, Bryan Paul (1996), “Raymon Aron’s War and Peace, Thirty Years Later”, International Journal, 51(2): 339- 361.
9Wekipedia Page on John Locke [Online: web] Accessed 2nd Mar. 2013 URL:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Locke.
negative freedom, non-religious natural law, limited state and rule of law.10 As said earlier, man by its very nature is reasonable but due to its passion to achieve more and develop his capacity in relative terms led him to indulge in conflict. Thus in the state of nature to get rid of these conflicts men together formed a civil society and then formed a government which can provide security to them and that government was a limited one unlike Hobbsian Leviathan which was an absolute power. Institution of state is meant to maximize individual’s freedom. At some places liberalism seems to be negating international organizations as Mises and Hayek were against the League of Nations and United Nations as these organizations are overactive as some times state do in national sphere and thus they making impact on individual’s freedom.11 Though liberals follow the adoption of morals while formulating foreign policy they do not negate war if it is meant for the security of people. As Michael Walzer (1977) and John Rawls (1999) justify humanitarian military intervention to protect human right and it should be multi-authorized by UN and overseen. Kant in his Perpetual Peace writes that there is less possibility of democratic republic to wage war and the reasons behind that is their formation by popular will of citizens.
He further writes that these liberal democracies form a pacific union among themselves and cooperate with each-other. According to him cooperative international division of labor and free market12 are going to be rewarding for every states, thus cooperation enhances their interests.
Kant and Bentham supported the establishment of international institutions as they are capable of reducing uncertainties, distrust and security dilemma among states. Liberals were blamed to postulate an idea of harmony of interests but actually they talk about convergence of interest as that is beneficial to all the contacting parties.
The most contested issue between realists and liberals was ethical and moral principles. Liberals were criticized for lacking pragmatic view on international relations and they were labelled as idealists or utopians. After the World War I liberals supported the view of the establishment of an international organization which could prevent war in future. Consequently the League of Nations came into being in the year 1920, but it could not prevent Second World War form taking place. This was the time when liberal theory was questioned again and again and the heated debate between liberal-institutionalists and realists begun towards the end of 1960s and
10 Barry, Norman P. (1987), On Classical Liberalism and Libertarianism, New York: St. Martins’ Press.
11Haar, Edwin Van de (2009), “Classical Liberalism and International Relations”, Policy, 25(1): 35-40.
12Doyel, Michael and Recchia, Stefano (2011), “Liberalism in International Relations”, in Badie, Bertrand eds.
International Encyclopedia of Political Science, Los Angeles: Sage
beginning of 1970s. Basically liberal-institutionalism is the outcome of the evolution of liberalism as neo-liberalism. Neoliberals though accept the conception of anarchy and the primacy of states in international relations they also say that international institutions are capable of making states to cooperate with each other. Liberal-intitutionalists postulate the view that the international institutions can make states to cooperate with each-other as there exists the commonality of interests among them. Institutionlists also blame realism for giving over- emphasis to conflict and underestimating the capabilities of international institutions in bringing about cooperation. Institutionlists are of the view that no hierarchy of issue exists in the arena of international politics as propagated by realists.
Institiutionalism and internationalism are the two strands of liberalism which believe in the efficiency of international institutions and global governance. Hedley Bull while talking about an international society writes that it is a group of states which are ‘conscious of certain common interest and common values’ decide to obey certain common rules and also ‘share in the working of a common institution’.13 According to liberals, cooperation is very important to yield economic growth and cope up the problem of regional and international security issues. Joseph Nye and Joseph Keohane postulated the idea of ‘complex interdependence’ in 1970 which had four characteristics challenging the basic notion of realism. The first explanation is that there are multiple channels of cooperation among states and non-state actors, secondly states try to maximize their interest by cooperating with each other and they are not concerned about others, thirdly the only obstacle in cooperation in non-complianceand cheating and fourthly they put more emphasis on soft power such as: procedure of international law, general international organizations and diplomacy.14 Graham Allison an institutionalist writes that in the era of globalization when the problem of cross border terrorism, problem of HIV/AIDS, issue of refugees and environmental degradation is aggravating, a state alone cannot think of fighting with these issues.15 Emergence of European Union (EU) and Greenpeace are some of the
13Blumer, S (1993), “The Governance of the European Union: A New Institutionalist Approach”, Journal of Public Policy, 13(4): 351-380.
14Keohane, R and Nye, J, (1977), Power and Interdependence: World Politics in Transition, Boston: Little, Brown.
15 Allison, G (2000), “The Impact of Globalization on National and International Security”, in Donahue, J and Nye, J eds. Governance in Globalizing World, Washington: Brookings Institution Press.
appropriate examples. Some of the critics of institutionalism argue that EU raises questions against the sovereignty of states and their legitimate right of unilateral relations and actions.16 Though the realist critics of institutionalism argue that international organizations could not play an effective role during cold-war and they were handicapped by the influence of US and Soviet Russia, most of the decisions were taken under the pressure of one of the super powers. As Stanely Hoffman writes “international affairs have been the nemesis of liberalism” and further states that liberal institutionalism rather than relying on global institution of cooperation fostered cooperation with North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the hegemons which is US.17 United State’s invasion in Iraq and Afghanistan last decades proved the futility of UN. Echoing this view Dowing (2000) writes that these institutions distribute power and access to decision making asymmetrically and thus few of the member overpower other members.18 Helen Milner (1997) criticizes both liberal and realist theory for ignoring the importance of domestic forces and policies in fostering cooperation at international level and dealing with moral and ethical issues.19The signing of Kyoto protocol by Australia presents a big example of domestic pressure for cooperation.20 The other criticism of liberal institutionalists is that though they have recognized the role of non-state actors they have not given due recognition to advocacy networks and social movements. Walker (1988) writes that social movements always stops sates from adopting coercive power in international arena.21 Inis Claude (1971) has also criticized the notion of global governance by liberal institutionalist as League of Nations was a massive failure and similarly he shows his distrust towards UN as it could also not generate trust among states that it can ensure safety and security.22 UN could not stop invasion of US in Afghanistan despite of it being a war with a malice intention. We have also witnessed the flawed policies like structural
16 Rebecca, Devitt (2011), “Liberal Institutionalism: An Alternative IR Theory or Just Maintaing the Staus Quo?”, [Online: web] Accessed 1st Mar. 2013 URL: http://www.e-ir.info/2011/09/01/liberal-institutionalism-an-alternative- ir-theory-or-just-maintaining-the-status-quo/#_ftn4.
17Hoffman, S (1999), “The Crisis of Liberal Institutionalism”, Foreign Policy, 98: 159-177.
18Dowing, Keith (2000), “Institutionalist Research on the European Union”, European Union Poltica, 1: 125-144.
19Milner, H (1977), Interests, Institutions and Information, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
20Keohane, R. (1984), After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy, Princeton:
Princeton University Press.
21Walker, R.B.(1998), One World, Many Worlds: Struggles for a Just World Peace, Boulder: Lynne Reinner Publishers.
22Claude, Inis (1971), Swords IntoPlowshares: the problems and progress of international organization, New York:
Random House.
adjustment programme (SAP) of World Bank in developing countries which has instead of providing solution increased the burden of debt on these countries.
4.3 Pluralist Interpretation of Global Governance
Pluralist theory of global governance came into prominence with the work of Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye during 1970s as they tried to bring an alternative theory to neo-realism. Through their work on complex interdependence and multiple access channels, they comprehended the concept of transnationalism. The pluralist theory of global governance premised upon the idea that IR is not only dominated by state actors but also there are many non-state actors including NGOs, civil society organizations, social movements have played a constructive role in shaping the order at global level. States cannot control all the transactions across the border and therefore in that case we need socio-political interaction to keep a check on these transactions, which is possible only with the assimilation of these non-state actors. They also argue that state is consisted of multiple actors and as a body cannot function alone in the same way a state should not ignore these actors. The inclusion of actors other than state makes global governing authority more democratic, accountable and responsible.
Pluralist paradigm helps us to understand global governance beyond the conception of interests and hegemony of states which was considered to determine the structure of global governance structure. Mansbach (1997) has talked about six types of actors which can play a constitutive role in global governance: interstate governmental actors, interstate non-governmental actors, nation states, governmental non-central actors, non-government actors and individuals as an actor.23 Turner (1998) has moved one step ahead and writes that international civil society including UN, social movements and multilateral corporations are emerging as an alternative to sovereign state cantered realism. 24The civil society organizations have become more popular because of their focus on particular issues and contesting more often on a worldwide platform. They also mobilize people and other social organization and help in increasing interaction among different
23Mansbach, Richard eds. (1996), “Towards a New Conceptualization of Global Politics”, in William, Phils eds.
(2006), Classic Readings and Contemporary Debates in International Relations, Belmont: Thomson Wadsworth
24Turner, Scott (1998), “Global Civil Society, Anarchy and Governance: Assessing an Emerging Paradigm”, Journal of Peace Research, 35(1): 25-42.
actors to contest for a particular cause which state and market failed to do. Though these actors do interact with states they have their individual existence which is many a times autonomous form states. These civil society organization experiments with innovative technologies in their functioning and thus they are far more efficient and equipped in solving global social problems than states. Putting emphasis on the use of communication technology Castells (1996) avows that the increasing networking among these organizations is the result of revolution in information technology.25 These civil society networks through their also helps in making the global governing mechanism more accountable and transparent. O’Brein eds. (2000) has talked about complex multilateralism which makes global governance accountable through transforming global economic structure.26 The current production of goods and services has now become global. Underlying the importance of borderless trade and production in global governance architecture Ohmae (1995) writes that we cannot trace back the production of goods and services to the national level in the present time because they are no more get recognized as emanated from a particular state.27Thus the pluralist theory of global governance underlined the importance of non-state actors which are playing an important role in global governance and it also adds that to some extent these actors have replaced sovereign states as a primary actor.
4.4 Regime Theory and Global Governance
Regime theory was promoted by Oran. R. Young in the beginning of 1990s just after the expansion of liberal institutionalism. According to him regime is necessary to solve the problem which can be solved only by collective action and effective decision making. Krasner writes about regime that it revolves around “norms, rules, principles and decision-making procedures around which actors expectations converge in a given area of International Relations” (Krasner 1983:2).28 After 1990s critical theory became popular as global governance theory. Regime is a set of rules and procedures while governance is a broader term and also includes implementation, monitoring and implementation. Young gives the definition of governance as “arrangements
25 Castell, Manuel, (1996), The Rise of Network Society, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
26O’Brien, Robert eds. (2000), Contesting Global Governance: Multilateral Economic Institutions and Global Social Movements, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
27Ohmae, Kenichi (1995), TheEnd of the Nation State: The Rise of Regional Economies, New York: Simon and Schuster.
28Kranser, Stephen eds. (1983), International Regimes, New York, Cornell University Press.
designed to resolve social conflicts, promote sustained cooperation in mixed motive relationships, and more generally, alleviate collective-action problems in the world of interdependent actors’ (Young 1997: 4).29 Regime theory brought it to light that since the problems faced by states in the era of globalization have global manifestation, they cannot be solved single handedly and we need specific regimes to deal with a particular problem. Thus in the initial phase global regimes were taken as a ‘management structure’ to mange new emerging problems.30
Stephen Kranser has talked about three models of regime: structuralist, modified structuralist and Grotian model.31Structuralist or the realist model talks about states as the primary actor and they dominate promote and maintain the rules in international institutions (regimes) which suit to their interest. Thus these institutions are not autonomous and work under the over lordship of states. Modified structuralist define regime as more than a temporary arrangement which changes according to the shift in power at international level. States are self interested entities and thus to maximize their interest and they try to bargain and negotiate among themselves for the gains which alone they cannot achieve. Modified structuralists also propagate state centric view at the end and consider regimes as a regulating body which regulates the behaviour of non- state actors. Those who adopt the last and third Grotain model explain regimes as an unavoidable phenomenon of international affairs. Grotians explain the social context of international regimes.
Though they give central position to states in regime formation they also put emphasis on the role of non-state actors and transnational actors and their interactions which influences decision making in a particular regime. Regime theory does not believe in an idea called ‘international society’ but focuses on issue based social cooperation at global level. Both modified struturalist and Grotains consider self interest and power as the bedrock of international cooperation. The structuralist model proposes the idea of hegemonic stability,32 that regime emerges only when hegemonic power governs and order the action of weaker states through a set of rules, while the modified realist opine that hegemon can only be accepted when it obliged to follow the rules and
29 Young, Oran R. (1997), “Rights, Rule, and Resources in World Affairs”, in Young, Oran R. eds. Global Governance: Drawing Insights from the Environmental Experience, Cambridge: The MIT Press.
30Evans, Tony and Wilson, Peter (1992), “Regime Theory and English School of International Relations: A Comparison, Millennium Journal of International Studies, 21(3): 329-351.
31Ibid.
32 Haggard, Stephen and Simmson, “Beth A (1987), “Theories of International Regime”, International Organization, 41(3): 429-517.
capable enough to lead. Modified realist theory believes in the formal structure of regimes like United Nations, World Bank, World Trade Organizations etc which includes structure and decision making procedures. However, Grotain, like Young, differentiates between institution and organization and writes that institution is the configuration of social values which is the outcome of shared fervor. Organizations on the other hand represent formal official structure, staff and finance. They are believed to be bureaucratic in nature. Thus one problem with regime theory is that there remains a certain amount of vagueness when it comes to the application and definition of regime, institution and organization.
4.5Critical Theory of IR and Global Governance
Critical theory rather than negating neorealist and neoliberal institutionalist approaches to IR takes into account their explanation of international institutions which says that regimes and their power to govern world politics is basically a mechanism to overcome “political market failure”.
The reason behind the emergence of critical theory is the failure of pre-existing theory to take into consideration the role of non-state actors such as social movements, epistemic communities, non-governmental organizations and civil society organizations while explaining the world political order. The other notable reason is the increasing demands of democracy by plethora of actor across the world. If we take into account the role of non-governmental organization and apply Herbarmasian discourse of ethics and study global governance mechanism we find that these non-state actors are playing a defining role in the formation of new international order and these actors are emerging as “non-territorial political community”.33 According to critical theories, these newly emerged regimes are providing space to the non-state actors and thus generate new identities, loyalties and obligations. Technological development has led to the flow of information rapidly and the increased economic transaction undermining the role of states and unilateral governance. This view is opined by hyperglobalists whereas transformationalists elucidate that the ongoing changes are not undermining the status and sovereignty of states rather it is the reconfiguration of authority and sovereignty of interests of states and it is happening because of the growing interaction among the socio-political forces across the globe. The issues
33 Payne, Rodger A. and Samhat, Nayef. H (2004), Democratizing Global Politics: Discourse, Norms, International Regime and Political Community, Albany: State University of New York.
which were considered as “low politics” during the era of cold war like human rights violation, environmental degradation, growing gap between rich and poor, and rapid increase of HIV/AIDS patients are gaining prominence at global level. Shared burden of increasing problems and new challenges caused by globalization make it mandatory for the establishment of new global agenda which could ensure more sensitive environment, strict obligation, responsibilities and loyalties from members which way ahead of particularism and self-interested politics. Issue based transnational networks which are working for a particular issue gives way to new norms and institutions of global governance.
Neufeld (1995) writes that polis is a political space which is socially created and it is meant to foster good and just life and equality and freedom.34 However, in the present time that polis is not able to provide solution to every problem which is externally forced and thus we need a truly global polis to which could ensure justice to everyone and which is all inclusive. In this context when new actors such as NGOs and civil society organizations are playing very important role in setting new norms, critical theory challenges the conservative international theories which gave prime importance to state over other actors and security over other interests. Brown (1994) writes that western IR theories which emanated from Enlightenment in Europe is in the state of crisis and therefore critical theory is gradually replacing the orthodox IR theories.35 The crisis emerged due to the prevailing belief in foundationalism, rationalism and positivism and neo- utilitarian theories. In response to this crisis emerged post-modernism, post-structuralism and critical theory. The neo-utilitarianism paradigm in IR did not take into consideration that ‘who’,
‘why’ and ‘how’ acts in the arena of international politics and thus gave birth to “third debate”
and critical theory is the part of that debate.
Critical theorists are skeptical about international regimes or global governing authorities as for them they are dominated by elites and hegemonic power and more than cooperation they are based on coercive interaction among states. Elite western countries dominate the international organization and other weaker states do not have voice in decision making so it should be restricted. They basically contest against the current design of global governing mechanism
34 Neufeld, Mark A. (1995), The Restructuring of International Relations, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
35Brown, Chris (2004), “Turtles All the Way Down: Anti-Foundationalism, Critical Theory and International Relation”, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 23(2): 213-236.
which lack democratic participation and thus they should be done away with. However, critical theory could not provide any substantial way out and it only criticizes the current order.
4.6Constructivist Explanation of Global Governance
During 1980s constructivism emerged as a counter attack on existing realist and liberal theories.
Nicholas Greenwood Onuf introduced the theory of constructivism to international relations in 1989 and after the end of cold war this theory got prominence in explaining the dominant discourses of IR and also to some extent tried to remodel them. Constructivism is basically an extension of critical theories of IR which criticize realism and liberalism for failing to predict the end of cold war and challenges following that ending. Though it is an extension of critical theories of modernism and post-modernism it differs from them on the ground that it’s assumptions are based on social and empirical assessment of events. Modern critical theories were inspired to a great extent by Hebbermas and Horkheimer of Frankfurt School and adopted
‘critical interpretativism’ on the other hand post-modernism is the outcome of Foucault and Derrida who believe in ‘radical interpretativism’. These theories emphasized on more historical,
‘discursive’ and ‘interpretative’ method of investigation of events taking place in society and at political level. Constructivism was mature enough to use these methods to investigate realities in the international arena.36Kratochwil, Ruggie, and Katzenstine propose that constructivism is a
“social theory of international politics”.37 Unlike neo-realists, who believe in an anarchical structure of world politics which determines the behaviour of states and they try to maximize their power by minimizing other capabilities, constructivists believe in social construction of world politics. 38 Constructivism basically revolves around four core concepts: ‘norms’,
‘discourses’, ‘identity’ and ‘socialization.39In contrast to institutionalism, which postulates the idea of “complex interdependence” and international institution to regulate the activities of actors at international level, constructivism considers the world politics as a sphere of interaction for
36Smit-Rues, Christian (2005”, “Constructivism”, Burchill, Scott eds., Theories of International Relations, Basingstoke: Plagrave.
37Karacasulu, Nilufer and Uzgoren (2007), “ExplaningSocailConstrutivist Contributions to Security Studies”
[Online: web] Accessed 1 Mar. 2013 URL: http://sam.gov.tr/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/KaracasuluUzgoren.pdf.
38Ibid.
39Checkel, Jeffrey T. (2008), “Constructivism and Foreign Policy”, in Smith, Steve eds. Foreign Policy: Theories Actors, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
plethora of actors. According to them world politics is shaped by the identities and practices of actors and also by constantly changing “normative institutional structure”. In fact the goals;
material or immaterial are also socially constructed identities as how the states want to see themselves in relation to others. 40 Constructivism explains that only anarchy is not enough to define and regulate world politics rather the social structures and arrangements whether conflictual or cooperative can be formed in the state of anarchy in accordance with the social identity of state in the same way as their national interest is constructed.41The most famous quote of Alexander Wendt (1992) “anarchy is what states make of it” explains the fact that anarchy itself is created and not a pre-given condition. He asserts that legitimacy, accountability and power everything which is functional at global level is socially constructed. States do cooperate and sometimes form an institution following the reality of commonality of their interests and problems which cannot be controlled inside the state boundaries.
Global governance is defined as construct of system of ideation and it emerges due to the shared interests of actors. Their identity and culture play an important role in determining the normative structure and instrumental dimension of these institutions. As Narian (2011) writes “the global governance structure is invented according to legitimacy and social consent” and thus it keeps changing with the change in the pattern of interaction among state and non-state actors. Global governance mechanism came into existence to mitigate the problems caused by globalization which are not under the control of one state alone. Globalization is an external factor but global governance is an internal factor in the sense that it is created socially and deeply embedded in societies of the member states. The best example of this notion is environmental governance.
Environmental degradation was a problem resulted by the effect of globalization but the mechanism to solve the problem emanated from the social interaction of states. Thus constructivism provides an inter-subjective dimension to global governance. Held and McGrew (2002: 8) ask “whether the thickening of institutional density, expanding jurisdiction, intensifying transnational politics, and deepening impact of super-state regulation denotes a qualitative-structural-shift in how global affairs and trans-boundary problems are governed”.
40Behravesh, Maysam (2011), “Constructivism: An Introduction”, [Online: web] Accessed 1st Mar. 2013 URL:
http://www.e-ir.info/2011/02/03/constructivism-an-introduction/#_edn16.
41Griffiths, Martin eds. (2008), International Relation: The Key Concepts 2nd Edition, London, New York:
Rutledge.
Basically the global governance signifies a shift from state centred world politics to multilateral governance centred politics.
Though constructivism has more popular in defining global governance because its assumptions were based on common ideas and general understanding it could not deal precisely with the change in social pattern and its impact on global governance. As per the explanation of the proponents of constructivism social identities of state and social interests influence the structuring of global governing mechanism but nothing substantial happen after Arab Spring which was a movement for democracy in Arabian countries. Definitely the norms and identities matter for global governing institutions but they are partially dominated by the norms and identities of western world and could hardly change with the change occurring in eastern societies.
5.Rosenau’s “Governance without Government”
Global governance is the set of formal rules for the management of international affairs. He further writes that definitely United Nations and states governments are very important but they are "only part of full picture". According to him global governance includes a system of rule from family to an international organization level in which goals are pursed with the help of control and which has "transnational repercussions". In the process of governance command dose not flow from government only but from many other sources in the form of goal and policy determination. Governance according to him is a steering process and the "dynamics of communication and control are central to the process". He does not consider hierarchy as an important feature of governance or needed for setting up goals, but control is central to his conception of governance. 'Consensus based shared fates', common historical background, 'possession of information and knowledge', 'pressure of mobilized public', 'good timing', 'clever manipulation' and 'hard bargaining' are the core of his conception of "Governance without Government". He believes in an informal and non-coercive method of control in the process of governance.
He writes that interdependence is the root of governance and he narrows down the concept of governance to the level not only to region, state and city but to family as well and writes that decision taken at micro level such as family can have repercussion at macro level or for that matter global level. He also writes that in the present time the ‘global life’ has become more complex due to the increased population, increased problems and more than that increased number of NGOs and other organizations. He opines that in the post cold war era there is an extension of anarchy where does not exist any over arching authority and ‘disaggregation’ which provides an opportunity and flexibility for experimenting with new forms of control. Global governance can also bring “coherence to multitude” across the globe. He has written that in the post cold war era we can see a shift in the location of authority and control which can be seen not only at political but at societal level and in economies as well. These shifts are taking place due to end of cold war, development of technology and also due to search for more effective political organization.
He emphasizes the role of NGOs and social movements for their role as control mechanism and further they can develop into “institutionalized instrument of government”. He has also talked about transnational criminal organization as they violate all the rules, in the present era of globalization when people across have become consumer of luxury goods these organizations are involved in illicit trade of luxury items. However, they work outside the structure of authority at global level. He has late talked about European Union and United Nations and their control system as a state sponsored institutionalized form of global governance mechanism. During the cold war era UN acted like a “peripheral player” and remained as a discussion forum for the issues which puzzled either of the powers. However, in the 21st century its role has been redefined.
Rosenau has provided an all inclusive picture of global governance but at last he writes that this process is still evolving and changing with the new demands and problems. Though his has talked about the plethora of actors and dealt with them extensively the problem with Rosenau’s conception is that it seems to be utopian as he has tried to narrow down the global governance to the decisions taken at an individual family level. He does not believe in the conception of hierarchy but by observing the minute observation of the global governing structure we can notice that hierarchy is deeply entrenched in every structure of governance. Moreover he has provided a normative view of global governance which seems to be impartial in present time.
6. Globalization and Global Governance
If we try to trace the history of global interaction we find that the most notable interaction which had an impact on international affairs was colonialism or imperialism. During the 19th and 20th century imperialism dominated the world politics. After the end of colonialism in the latter half of 20th century, world witnessed change in trade patterns in world economy. Now the sovereign states were not playing the role of regulator as the trade did not conceded to physical boundary any more. This process led to economic globalization which ultimately led to free flow of everything everywhere. Unregulated transnational economic activities adversely affected democratic principles inside and outside the state territory and the gap between rich and poor widened many folds. As Rosenau (1997) writes that sovereign borders are becoming porous and frontier between national and transnational phenomena is becoming blurred. Thus at the onset of 21st century we saw a great deal of transformation in society, polity, economy and environment.
Therefore changes caused by globalization can be understood as a stimulating factor for increasing demand of global governance. However, there are contrasting opinion regarding the relation between globalization and global governance. One is that globalization is yet not over and it is still evolving and its impact on society, polity, and economy is changing gradually.
Secondly, the global governance as a regulating mechanism itself is altering the course of the progress of globalization (Patterberg 2006).
In the section on theoretical debate we have discussed how different theories interpreted global governance in different times as realist gave state centric view of global governance, on the contrary liberal institutionalists recognize the role of international organizations in shaping international relations and pluralists applaud the role of non-state actors for their determining impacts on global policy making. To understand the impact of globalization on global governance it is pertinent to understand transnational relations first. Globalization and its impact on IR is the most debatable issue in last three decades and Keohne’s “complex interdependence”, Fukuyama’s “end of history”42 and Rosenau’s “governance without government” are some of the jargons dominated the IR discourses in these decades. However, till 1970s states were the prime
42Fukuyama, Francis (1992), The End of History and the Last Man, New York: The Free Press.
